ON WHAT SIDE OF THE HOLOCAUST ARE YOU ON? OLMERT AND ISRAELI HYPOCRISY
Terry Scott
The People’s Voice, TN
Dec 14 2006
Is it cheeky or just magnificent Israeli chutzpah for Ehud Olmert to
ask the new Pope to condemn Iran’s "Holocaust Conference" in the face
of the worst chapter of human rights abuses against the Palestinians?
Arrogant, diffident and pugnacious Mr. Olmert actually has the cojones
to go to the Vatican and tell the Pope to condemn a conference on
the most untouchable of taboo topics in modern history at the same
time as disallowing the United Nations fact-finding team from being
granted visas to conduct their study of Beit Hanoun??? Has the Anglican
Church become so distant from the Catholic mothership, that Archbishop
Desmond Tutu’s public humiliation by the Israelis can mean so little
to this German pontiff?
[More:]
Is it me or do you also have the distinct nauseating feeling that
Israeli politicians have made the entire world their playground to
stride so brazenly and arrogantly demanding and criticising whatever
they please?
Perhaps the not-to-be-trusted Olmert thought that Pope Benedict’s
comments about Islam earlier this year insinuated a "warming up" of
relations with the Jewish State and that the more recent tete-a-tete
with his German counterpart Merkel, signaled a reconciliation of German
and Jewish interests. What else did Olmert ask from the Germans this
time, more money for "reparations" that no other holocaust equivalent
group received: the Armenians from the Turks?
Cambodians from Pol Pot? Chileans from Pinochet? Japanese from the
Americans?
The Vatican ought at the very least to follow through with the
agreement that was signed with the PLO in early 2000 with these
little-followed goals:
Calling for a peaceful solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
which would realize the inalienable national legitimate rights
and aspirations of the Palestinian People, to be reached through
negotiation and agreement, in order to ensure peace and security
for all peoples of the region on the basis of international law,
relevant United Nations and its Security Council resolutions, justice
and equity;
Declaring that an equitable solution for the issue of Jerusalem,
based on international resolutions, is fundamental for a just and
lasting peace in the Middle East, and that unilateral decisions and
actions altering the specific character and status of Jerusalem are
morally and legally unacceptable [source].
Did Benedict remind Ehud Olmert of these agreements?
n/blogs/voices.php/2006/12/14/p12921